Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:01 pm    Post subject: Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth... Reply with quote
Amongst my 5-6 50mm (ish) lenses I own are my Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T* and the Canon FL 55mm f1.2.
The Zeiss has a stellar MTF rating of 4.6 and this gives the impresion that it should be among the sharpest 50mm (ish) lenses ever made and that therefore it should easily beat the older Canon for sharpness.
The thing is I had never found the results from my Zeiss justified such a high MTF rating and I got consistantly better results from the Canon, so eventually I got to wondering which one was best...
Today I had some time on my hands so I decided to compare one against the other at typical apertures I like to use, in this case f2.8 and f5.6.
I was supprised to find that the Canon was indeed the sharper lens at both apertures, and had smoother bokeh at both apertures too.
I dont recall the FL 55mm f1.2 ever being tested for an MTF rating but going by the results of my comparison its at least worthy of an 4.6 rating too, if not more.
The subject was the back of an old fridge in my back garden approximately 8' 6" away from the camera, which was mounted on a tripod near the back door in my kitchen.
To ensure the focus was spot on with each lens I drew a letter A on the back of fridge with a fine permanent marker and focused on that.
The comparison pics were all taken from the same spot, which obviously gave the FL a slight focal length advantage so I took crops from the comparsion images reduced the FL crops to the same size as the CZ crops...(The FL crops are 11 pixels wider).
Even then the FL images are still sharper as very fine text on a lable can be easily read in the FL crops but not so easily in the Zeiss crops.
Here are the crops and just for fun see if you can guess which is which and at what aperture they were taken, without cheating and looking at the image names.
(BTW, these are straight from the camera with no processing and all were underexposed a bit hence the colour noise):









PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Applause for the creative test target.

However, your test is invariably biassed by that "A" you drew - after all CAnon is very near "A" in the alphabet, while Zeiss is about as far as you can get. The letter "M" might have avoided this bias. Laughing [joking here]

The first and third are the same lens and the second and fourth - I'm using the color cast, though if I peer closely enough the 1/3 seem a bit more legible as well.

The coils to my eye on 4 are the most in focus though - I know you didn't focus on them, but I suppose this would be with the lens closed down a bit.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I have done some comparison is this line:

Contax Planar 1.4/50 and Canon FD 50 f1.2

Canon was sharper -- but the test is NOT FAIR because of this:

aperture stops were different ..

In your case: Canon 55 has longer focal length and also different initial aperture than Contax 1.7

You would have to do a test between:

Canon FD 55 f1.2 and Contax Planar 1.2/55 and make a statement Smile

tf


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the problem is in the superiority concept - and also in limiting it to sharpness.
About superiority, this is really a vain concept in my opinion. First, no maker makes all perfect lenses - there are always some that are better than others. For instance, Zeiss Oberkochen made the Distagon 21, which is the best 21mm existing, but it also made the Tele-Tessar 300, which is a well below average lens.
Secondly, superiority is inane on a practical point of view: all the best lenses in the lineups of the most reputed brands will let a photographer make a job: Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Olympus, and maybe other brands - these are all brand that are able to produce professional equipment.

What is more true is that every good manufacturer gives its lenses a character, that is common to all models (while bad manufacturers make lenses that are not omogeneous in the image rendering).
So of course if a person likes the Zeiss type of image better, he will prefer all the Zeiss lenses, but the same happens with Takumar lovers, and Leica lovers...

About sharpness, one should really test at least three different samples of each model in order to be able to say something meaningful. The copy variation factor affects also the best brands - actually, even more than the other brands, because the best brands usually produce the best lenses and the best lenses have a tolerance for build error that is much minor than everyday workhorse lenses.

Then I agree with the comment that comparing two different focal lenghts is problematic. The longer lens always feels sharper. I noticed that myself several times.

Finally: sharpness is not the end of all lens things. There are other important factors to a lens.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
Well, I have done some comparison is this line:

Contax Planar 1.4/50 and Canon FD 50 f1.2

Canon was sharper -- but the test is NOT FAIR because of this:

aperture stops were different ..

In your case: Canon 55 has longer focal length and also different initial aperture than Contax 1.7

You would have to do a test between:

Canon FD 55 f1.2 and Contax Planar 1.2/55 and make a statement Smile

tf


+100

For a lens compair, both lenses have to be in the same class.
A stopped down 1.2 is mostly sharper when you stopped down a little in terms of the mostly much better correction.

Stop down the Planar to, lets say f/4 and the results would be totally
different from your opinion in your post.

To me, such tests do say nothing if they are not done on an compairable base.

Cheers
Hinnerker


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
Stop down the Planar to, lets say f/4 and the results would be totally different


Agree!

BTW - what a thread feeding fat signature!

hinnerker wrote:
EOS 5D, EOS 400D, LEICA R5 w. drive, Leica Elmarit 2.8/28mm. Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm, Leica Summicron 2.0/35mm, Leica Summilux 1.4/50mm, Leica Makro Elmarit 2.8/60mm + 1:1 , Leica Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Leica Elmarit 2.8/135mm, Leica Elmarit 2.8/180mm, Leica Telyt 4/250mm, Leica 2x TK, Angenieux 2.5-3.3/35-70, Canon EF 2.8/20-35mm L, Canon EF 4/70-200 L, Canon EF 1.8/50mm MKI, Rolleinar 2.8/105mm, Porst 1.2/55mm, Samyang 1.4/85, Zuiko 1.4/50mm, Novoflex 4/60mm + 4/105mm, Carl Zeiss 2.8/200mm,
Schacht Ulm Edixa-Mat Travenar 2.8/90mm..

very good stuff but sold: Leica 2.8/24mm (not working on a 5D), Leica Makro Elmarit 4/100, Leica Summicron 2/50mm, Angenieux 3.5/70-210mm, Leica MR Telyt 8/500, Nikkor AI 3.5/20mm, CZJ Flektogon 2.8/20mm, Mikro Nikkor 3.5/55mm AI + PC Versions, CZJ Flektogon 4/25mm, TAIR 11 2.8/135, Jupiter 37A (all Versions), CZJ Sonnar (P6) 2.8/180mm (all Versions), CZJ Pancolar's, nearly complete Yashica DS-M range from 2.8/24mm to 4/200mm (without 28mm), Carl Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50mm, Zeiss Skoparex 3.4/35mm, Voigtländer Color Ultron, Carl Zeiss Tele Tessars, Pentax Super Takumar 1.9/85, Super Takumar 2.8/105, SMC Takumar 3.5/135mm, Super Takumar 3.5/28mm, most of the CZJ Stuff (3.5/135mm Sonnars, Oreston, Lydith, Orestor, Orestegor, Tessars an so on).. and lots more.

Analog cams in the past: 35mm Icarex 35TM, Yashica TL Electro x, Canon FTb Ql, Canon F1, Canon A1, Leicaflex SL Mot, Leicaflex SL2 Mot, Leica R3mot, Leica R4, Leica R5, all with drive, Nikon F2, Nikon F3 HP. Hasselblad 500C with all what you need. On Work: Leica M3 with all what you need..


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
..

What is more true is that every good manufacturer gives its lenses a character, that is common to all models (while bad manufacturers make lenses that are not omogeneous in the image rendering).
So of course if a person likes the Zeiss type of image better, he will prefer all the Zeiss lenses, but the same happens with Takumar lovers, and Leica lovers...

About sharpness, one should really test at least three different samples of each model in order to be able to say something meaningful. The copy variation factor affects also the best brands - actually, even more than the other brands, because the best brands usually produce the best lenses and the best lenses have a tolerance for build error that is much minor than everyday workhorse lenses.

Then I agree with the comment that comparing two different focal lenghts is problematic. The longer lens always feels sharper. I noticed that myself several times.

Finally: sharpness is not the end of all lens things. There are other important factors to a lens.


+ 1000

The character of a lens is more important than only the sharpness term.
For example.. the Angenieux Zooms brings back a bit of the "air" of the old slides..

A Super Takumar 1.9 oder 1.8/85mm gives you the control over the sharpness-behavior in a superb way, softening portraits of older Models or for doing a dermatologic scan..

And there are lots of specific characteristics for each lens you cant describe in terms of sharpness, Lines per mm, or any testchart.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:

The character of a lens is more important than only the sharpness term.


+10000. Didn't Henri Cartier-Bresson say: "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mflex-on wrote:
hinnerker wrote:
Stop down the Planar to, lets say f/4 and the results would be totally different


Agree!

BTW - what a thread feeding fat signature!

hinnerker wrote:
EOS 5D, EOS 400D, LEICA R5 w. drive, Leica Elmarit 2.8/28mm. Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm, Leica Summicron 2.0/35mm, Leica Summilux 1.4/50mm, Leica Makro Elmarit 2.8/60mm + 1:1 , Leica Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Leica Elmarit 2.8/135mm, Leica Elmarit 2.8/180mm, Leica Telyt 4/250mm, Leica 2x TK, Angenieux 2.5-3.3/35-70, Canon EF 2.8/20-35mm L, Canon EF 4/70-200 L, Canon EF 1.8/50mm MKI, Rolleinar 2.8/105mm, Porst 1.2/55mm, Samyang 1.4/85, Zuiko 1.4/50mm, Novoflex 4/60mm + 4/105mm, Carl Zeiss 2.8/200mm,
Schacht Ulm Edixa-Mat Travenar 2.8/90mm..

very good stuff but sold: Leica 2.8/24mm (not working on a 5D), Leica Makro Elmarit 4/100, Leica Summicron 2/50mm, Angenieux 3.5/70-210mm, Leica MR Telyt 8/500, Nikkor AI 3.5/20mm, CZJ Flektogon 2.8/20mm, Mikro Nikkor 3.5/55mm AI + PC Versions, CZJ Flektogon 4/25mm, TAIR 11 2.8/135, Jupiter 37A (all Versions), CZJ Sonnar (P6) 2.8/180mm (all Versions), CZJ Pancolar's, nearly complete Yashica DS-M range from 2.8/24mm to 4/200mm (without 28mm), Carl Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50mm, Zeiss Skoparex 3.4/35mm, Voigtländer Color Ultron, Carl Zeiss Tele Tessars, Pentax Super Takumar 1.9/85, Super Takumar 2.8/105, SMC Takumar 3.5/135mm, Super Takumar 3.5/28mm, most of the CZJ Stuff (3.5/135mm Sonnars, Oreston, Lydith, Orestor, Orestegor, Tessars an so on).. and lots more.

Analog cams in the past: 35mm Icarex 35TM, Yashica TL Electro x, Canon FTb Ql, Canon F1, Canon A1, Leicaflex SL Mot, Leicaflex SL2 Mot, Leica R3mot, Leica R4, Leica R5, all with drive, Nikon F2, Nikon F3 HP. Hasselblad 500C with all what you need. On Work: Leica M3 with all what you need..


Means that i did have a lot of equipment and are always on the way to find the better ones of "the best" or there is no categorie in the forum to show the rating of lenses i worked with in more than 30 Years Very Happy

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unless you are looking for perfect "Life Like" reproduction.
The concept of lens superiority is theoretical.

It's all in the Signature Smile

The very thing that may make one lens the wrong one for a job.
May also make it the best one for another job.

Different brushes so to speak.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
hinnerker wrote:

The character of a lens is more important than only the sharpness term.


+10000. Didn't Henri Cartier-Bresson say: "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" Wink


Didnt know if he said that, but each "concept" has his own existing right.
But me, i prefer to take lenses in different situations as a part of my
"photographic toolbox". This describes the way, why i am interested in
manual lenses. Each of them has a own character, which you mostly cant find in newer formulas.

Dont understand this wrong. I've got a lot of Canon L - Lenses for automatic purposes, but the manual lenses mostly gives me more "character" in my images instead of using only sharp but "cold" Canon Lenses.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:

In your case: Canon 55 has longer focal length and also different initial aperture than Contax 1.7

You would have to do a test between:

Canon FD 55 f1.2 and Contax Planar 1.2/55 and make a statement :)


I disagree about having to match the aperture. If I have one lens with me and want to take a photo at, say, f/2, it doesn't matter what the maximum aperture of the lens is—I don't go “hmm, it would be unfair for this lens to be used at f/2 because I have a faster lens at home and it might be better at this setting”. Obviously we can't fairly compare f/1.2 against f/1.7 wide open (it'd be unfair for the f/1.2), but comparing them at the same f-stop is, in my opinion, entirely justified, especially when these two lenses are roughly in the same price range (depends on condition and luck, of course).

The different focal length is problematic, but in my opinion 50mm and 55mm are close enough that it doesn't matter. For example, I wouldn't be able to anticipate the difference that 5mm would make in the photos I'm about to take, so I could just as well take either lens when going out to take pictures. (Although the test photos should probably be composed similarly rather than shot from equal distance, instead of being resized later.)


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
....

What is more true is that every good manufacturer gives its lenses a character, that is common to all models (while bad manufacturers make lenses that are not omogeneous in the image rendering).
So of course if a person likes the Zeiss type of image better, he will prefer all the Zeiss lenses, but the same happens with Takumar lovers, and Leica lovers...
...

Finally: sharpness is not the end of all lens things. There are other important factors to a lens.


Thats the reason why its so important to find the best of all "lens worlds" from different manufacturers.

To find the real gems of Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or Canon is exactly my meaning and way i am acting after a lack of many absent years from beeing a Pro...

I could buy every new formula lens from Canon.. but i am searching like the most of the people here in that forum, to lfill my toolbox with the "charme" needings..

Cheers
Henry

Last edited by hinnerker on Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@henry, Peter, Andy: I cannot agree more!! It always reminds me of the guy who asked the famous master painter "master, what a wonderful painting - which brush did you use?" Same with lenses...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
trifox wrote:

In your case: Canon 55 has longer focal length and also different initial aperture than Contax 1.7

You would have to do a test between:

Canon FD 55 f1.2 and Contax Planar 1.2/55 and make a statement Smile


I disagree about having to match the aperture. If I have one lens with me and want to take a photo at, say, f/2, it doesn't matter what the maximum aperture of the lens is—I don't go “hmm, it would be unfair for this lens to be used at f/2 because I have a faster lens at home and it might be better at this setting”. Obviously we can't fairly compare f/1.2 against f/1.7 wide open (it'd be unfair for the f/1.2), but comparing them at the same f-stop is, in my opinion, entirely justified, especially when these two lenses are roughly in the same price range (depends on condition and luck, of course).

The different focal length is problematic, but in my opinion 50mm and 55mm are close enough that it doesn't matter. For example, I wouldn't be able to anticipate the difference that 5mm would make in the photos I'm about to take, so I could just as well take either lens when going out to take pictures. (Although the test photos should probably be composed similarly rather than shot from equal distance, instead of being resized later.)


Ok, but you introduced a one lens strategie/consideration, which is not a part of that whats going on in the initial post.

Each lens, which brings the details nearer to the viewer/Sensor, seemed to be more sharp in details.

Me, i would prefer in your "one lens strategie" really the 1.2 lens.. equal which brand. So i can stop down to 1.7 oder 1.8 an get better results..

Cheers
Hinnerker


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh well i won't go into debates, for me Zeiss are the best Cool. I do'nt look for sharpness, a sharp image is not necessary a good image.

Just to say that Zeiss invented the Planar formula lens, which was copied with more or less success by lens makers of all brands, so here again Zeiss wins. All others lenses are Zeiss wannabe.


Am i biased ?


No. I just stated a fact


Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think the problem is in the superiority concept - and also in limiting it to sharpness.


I fully agree that sharpness is not what determines superiority in general. However, I also think that there is a threshold of sharpness that should be exceeded by a lens before it is usable for some practical purposes at that setting. If the “required” threshold—which is of course entirely dependent on the individual's requirements—is not reached, then it can be said that one lens is superior for that use by that user because it meets this requirement. For example, I have some lenses that are simply not sharp enough to be used wide open in some situations, even though they may be some of my favourite lenses when stopped down…

So, yes, it's not “right” to say that one lens is “superior” overall because it happens to be sharper, but in my opinion it's still good to understand what kind of sharpness to expect from a lens at a given setting. If I was looking for a lens to be used primarily around f/1.4-2 for low-light portraits, it wouldn't matter how great the lens was otherwise if the lens was not sharp enough at these settings.

(Note that by “sharp enough” I mean sharp enough for the purpose; I'm not saying that the best lens would be the one that's sharpest.)

Orio wrote:

About sharpness, one should really test at least three different samples of each model in order to be able to say something meaningful.


It's certainly true that sharpness is one thing that can very much be affected by sample variance, but even if one (undamaged) sample of the lens is not sharp enough or a given user's given purpose, it can be said that it's possible that the lens is not a good choice for that user. If a lens is sharp enough, that obviously doesn't mean that there doesn't exist some other sample of the same lens that isn't sharp enough, but the more that lens exceeds that user's threshold for what is sharp enough, the more hope it gives (it's far more likely that the lens being tested is close to the average sample than among the few best samples ever, assuming—quite fairly, in my opinion—that samples are normally distributed).

Since most people tend to have only one sample of a given lens (especially a rare or an expensive one), it's quite reasonable for them to compare those individual samples. The major benefit of such a comparison goes to the owner of the lenses who then better knows what to expect from them in different situations, but I think it's interesting for others as well, and certainly not meaningless…

The topic may be a bit too provocative in this case. =)

Orio wrote:

Finally: sharpness is not the end of all lens things. There are other important factors to a lens.


I fully agree—after the (subjective) threshold of “sharp enough” is reached, I think sharpness is perhaps the least important characteristic.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good statement.. and correct IMHO

The term sharpness is only one aspect..
"painting feature" of a lens is often more important.

See this picture.. taken with a cheap 1.2 Porst 55mm



Not sharp, but the use in this special situation to demonstrate the
Low Key tech.. perfect. It was not important, to use the sharpest lens i own.

The image shows more of the character from old slide..

Thats what i like in such situations..

Cheers
Henry

Last edited by hinnerker on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
However, going back to the OP - in shooting the backs of old refrigerators so you can read the sticker on the back - which lens is the better one? Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:

Each lens, which brings the details nearer to the viewer/Sensor, seemed to be more sharp in details.


True, that's why I think the distance should be changed between lenses so that the magnification on the sensor is the same. The original poster attempted to equalise by resizing in post-processing, which gives benefit to the originally larger image (in theory).

hinnerker wrote:

Me, i would prefer in your "one lens strategie" really the 1.2 lens.. equal which brand. So i can stop down to 1.7 oder 1.8 an get better results..


I think the “one lens strategy” is a reasonable expectation when the lenses are both relatively small, relatively fast, general-purpose (e.g. not macro), and of approximately the same focal length. Who would take both lenses along at once and switch lenses depending only on the aperture setting used?

I'm sure the original poster would also prefer to have a Zeiss f/1.2 lens instead of an f/1.7, but since these are the ones he has, and in my opinion the lenses have a similar purpose, it makes sense for him to compare them against each other. If he personally finds the f/1.2 better (by his criteria), what does it matter if there's some other lens in the world that it would be fairer to compare against if that's a lens he will probably never have? And in practice even an f/1.4 Zeiss is more expensive than the FL f/1.2, so for some buyers the two lenses compared may even be the practical choices to choose between. I think the general expectation would be for the Zeiss to be better beyond f/2, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so I think it's interesting to see that going for the f/1.2 does not necessarily mean compromising stopped-down performance…


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Oh well i won't go into debates, for me Zeiss are the best Cool. I do'nt look for sharpness, a sharp image is not necessary a good image.


Exactly, thank you Hexi Smile


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Oh well i won't go into debates, for me Zeiss are the best Cool. I do'nt look for sharpness, a sharp image is not necessary a good image.

Just to say that Zeiss invented the Planar formula lens, which was copied with more or less success by lens makers of all brands, so here again Zeiss wins. All others lenses are Zeiss wannabe.

Am i biased ? No. I just stated a fact Wink


I guess that Hexi was smiling when he wrote that last sentence, but I'm not sure that 'inventing' the Planar design makes Zeiss a winner. The Planar was one of a series of incremental innovations in the evolution of lens designs, by no means all of which originated in Jena. It might not actually have originated with Zeiss ... Shocked

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Zeiss had a continuous and extensive patent monitoring programme which they used to collect information about developments in lens design, not just in photo lenses but also in telescope and microscope lens systems. Their design department built on a proportion of that acquired knowledge, and the firm also bought up patents which offered promising lines of development.

The only thing that set Zeiss apart from other makers was the scale on which they did this, and the depth of their pocket if it came to buying up the rights to designs which interested them. The archive of the English firm of Thomas Cooke & Sons holds thousands of patents which were collected in the same way, but Cooke's seldom bought up patent rights - unless they were a direct threat to the firm's current work. Zeiss, in contrast, was able to eliminate competition and speed its own R&D programmes by doing so. For an example of this philosophy, witness the way in which Zeiss eliminated optical glass making which competed with Schott, and eventually swallowed its main rival.The Zeiss Stiftung was quick to recognise that marking "Lizenz Goerz" on a product was hardly grade A publicity - !

This monitoring of rapidly emerging designs around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and the traffic in patents and licences, is a field still neglected by business historians, but it certainly was highly important, if not vital, to many key players in the instruments industries at that time. And, of course, it still is.

None of which means that the Planar family isn't absolutely brilliant Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The importance of the sharpness is a legacy that been born in the times of great format and very prone to flare and low contrast lenses.

Remember the necesity of sharpness in old fotographers (eg. F/64 ones)

With the little format and newer lenses, and just better lenses, the point is the new view about the IQ. Resolution power? Contrast? Yes, but saturation, bokeh, etc are into IQ too.

For a long time the sharpness was the abstract parameter used in the words world to define an object used in the visual world.

Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
Means that i did have a lot of equipment and are always on the way to find the better ones of "the best"

http://forum.mflenses.com/signature-samples-t7273.html


Sharp or not - sharpness is helpful in terms of merchantability, commercial usability of pictures: it is easier to unsharpen a picture than to to create sharpness in weak pictures - almost impossible.
So in terms of professionality I would always prefer a sharper lens.

Last edited by mflex-on on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:57 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

I guess that Hexi was smiling when he wrote that last sentence, but I'm not sure that 'inventing' the Planar design makes Zeiss a winner. The Planar was one of a series of incremental innovations in the evolution of lens designs, by no means all of which originated in Jena. It might not actually have originated with Zeiss ... Shocked


Well, speculation is always interesting in a discussion, but the facts are facts. Planar was designed by Paul Rudolph in year 1896. At the time, Rudolph worked at -and for- Zeiss.
So I'm afraid, Planar is fully Zeiss Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2